I was employed in a 10-20 people firm for two years and decided to explore other options. in the firm, I supported our main designer with photoshop & drafting, project managers with CDs, and towards the end of my employment I worked as a job captain. But most of the project I worked on was ADA upgrades, renovations, and etc. There was a guy who came in as a junior designer like me, but he was only doing sketchup models and no CDs. I was pigeon-holed in CDs after he came in, and have barely any experience in 3d modeling.
Then I got a job offer at a reputable company. They have 10+ branches and in-house architect & engineers so I thought that it will be a change from my previous experience. However, I think the con of this company is that they work with prototypes and small retail such as Target, fast food chains, and etc. Seems like everything is in autocad and only one person works on 3d rendering and photoshop.
I wanted to be a "designer" but I feel like I am getting so much better in technical drawings and I don't know if this is good or bad. Most firms I have been interviewing with seem to draft everything in CAD still and only a few focus on 3d renderings (I wanted some experience in 3d because I believe I am average so I wanted to build up my skills). As an intern / junior designer, I don't know if this path is correct or if I should be seeking for change.
ANY advice will be appreciated. Thank you!
Non Sequitur
Apr 22, 16 11:18 am
Sketchup and photoshop is damn easy and it's a job best kept for low-entry, low-pay employees. You'll advance much quicker if you concentrate your efforts of proper detailing and project management. I have people in my office who are licensed but only deal in sketchup... and that's where they will stay because they never made the effort to gain CA and CD experience when it was available.
All that to say, learn the 3D stuff on your own time since it's easy and take up as much CD & CA responsibilities as possible.
SneakyPete
Apr 22, 16 11:34 am
On the other hand, many firms "design" using sketchup and max, as if image-making was a replacement for considerate and extensive thought, research, and process. So in those firms you might feel more designer-y. Until, that is, you realize those firms also typically have a single person who designs top down.
baker1
Apr 22, 16 11:51 am
If you are good in technical drawing, its much better to be architect. You have a skill that not so easy to gain.
Michael Adams
Apr 22, 16 3:07 pm
I think it is good advice
Leandro Llorente
Apr 25, 16 5:35 pm
a good drafter leads to a good designer.
awaiting_deletion
Apr 25, 16 9:47 pm
design is easy (as far as skill goes). talent is not skill. you need good drawings to execute good design. the better you draft the better the execution of the design. some designers rely heavily on technical staff to produce and thats when the details for the design start to fall apart. some designers draft every last inch, thats when the details get designed and worked out.
geezertect
Apr 26, 16 8:11 am
Non Sequitur is right. Assuming your goal is Architect and not Computer Operator, you need CA and CD experience-as much as possible. Knowing every computer program is nice, but the job description of architect is knowing how to put a real life building together. Farting around with 3d is really not going to get you there.
And I will say it again. If you, as an architect in a firm that uses revit, do not learn revit, you are failing your firm. You have an obligation to understand the process, and that process includes revit. If you don't understand how a rainscreen works, you have no business using one on your "design" and making someone else figure it out. Same goes with revit. Nobody said you need to be a bim manager, but to refuse to learn it as some sort of manipulative power play?
Fuck that, and fuck anyone selfish enough to think it's a good idea.
archiwutm8
Apr 26, 16 12:08 pm
^ Agree with sneakyPete, may as well not bother coming to work if you don't understand the process. Maybe tomorrow I'll stop understanding how to use AutoCAD.
geezertect
Apr 26, 16 12:23 pm
^ I agree that a good working knowledge prevalent programs is important. But, it should not be in lieu of learning how buildings get built. The building comes first, not the computer.
SneakyPete
Apr 26, 16 12:24 pm
Agree 100% with geezer.
Everyday Intern
Apr 26, 16 12:34 pm
Agree. Read the post and the comments and (despite the title) you'll see I say the same. Here's an excerpt from one of my comments (emphasis added just now):
"Learn CAD, or Rhino, or Sketchup, or 3DS Max, or Microstation, or even Revit ... yes, I said Revit (I've even said it before, way up there in the comments).
I don't think it really matters what you learn as long as you understand that the software is not going to make you an architect. You need to be proficient in whatever software your employer is going to require of you so go ahead and learn it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that if you attain some level of expertise or mastery in a particular program you have a golden ticket to the profession.
There are a lot of other things that make up this profession and you should become proficient in all of them. This includes cost estimating, scheduling, specifications, red lining drawings, building codes, contracts, agreements and other boring but extremely important documents. The sooner you start to show your boss how valuable you are in these other areas, the sooner you become a real asset to your firm and not just someone that knows Revit or AutoCAD really well."
xx__
Apr 26, 16 2:23 pm
I thought everybody has stepped up their Revit game for now (2016)?
parkn
Apr 26, 16 3:14 pm
Thank you everyone for all your advice!
bowling_ball
Apr 27, 16 10:50 pm
At my office, the PMs aren't expected to know Revit, or barely CAD for that matter. That's what we have interns and techs for. The designers are tasked with communicating ideas and information to those drafting the project for CDs.
Design is not about the software any more than it's about the pencil sketch, sample board, or any other tool. Which is to say that all are components of a design, and necessary, but not ends unto themselves.
If software was the most important part, the best designers would be 20 year olds coming out of community college, and I'm fairly certain that's not the case.
jon ammer
Apr 28, 16 1:46 am
NO IT IS NOT. You just dismissed the very essence of Architectural Education. Good Design at the Outset takes much much more time than ordinary / lazy design solutions. Ordinary Buildings are easy. No wonder Our Profession is barely regarded as necessary by the greater Public when its full of Architects who knock other Architects who might happen to be extra adept at front end design
"At my office, the PMs aren't expected to know Revit, or barely CAD for that matter. That's what we have interns and techs for. The designers are tasked with communicating ideas and information to those drafting the project for CDs."
Your office is either a special snowflake or full of miserable interns and techs. Probably the latter, but you wouldn't know if you are one of the designers or PMs. PMs are in charge of schedule and budget. If you don't have a clue as to how long it takes a tech or intern to do the work because you don't understand the tools they use, then you're not doing your job. If you think everything is fine, then either they are better at communication than you are and tell you honestly how long it will take, or they're hiding overtime in order to meet your uneducated expectations.
"The designers are tasked with communicating ideas and information to those drafting the project for CDs."
Yeah, fuck collaboration. Just communicate down the poop tube and hopefully the plebes will get the job done. After all, designers are too important to be burdened with such pedestrian issues as production and CDs.
This industry is a microcosm of what is wrong with the world. The fat cats at the top keep making bank while the rest of us make it work.
,,,,
Apr 28, 16 1:32 pm
^No one in their right mind would work for a chicken shit firm like that.
SneakyPete
Apr 28, 16 2:16 pm
Yet firms like that exist and are staffed.
,,,,
Apr 28, 16 2:29 pm
Yes, that is unfortunately true. However, companies that do not value their employees are operating under a bad business model and will either fail or not achieve the success they could have.
SneakyPete
Apr 28, 16 4:52 pm
I find that to be a bit of a Pollyanna point of view. We reward companies for bad behavior every day of the week, and Architecture isn't any different. Until we stop being apologists for the failings of our peers and superiors, things will not change.
bowling_ball
Apr 29, 16 12:05 am
I want to clarify a few things about what I said earlier, and the resulting comments. I will probably sound defensive in tone but I'm just trying to be clear and concise as I'm typing this on my phone.
We are a service firm of 20ish people, not a boutique design firm. While that can be frustrating at times, we are incredibly busy because "we get shit done" when other firms fail. We're under our fifth generation of ownership since inception in the1930s. For all of our faults (there are many), we're good at what we do, and we are national-level experts for one very specific type of health care design. But no, we are not snowflakes, not by any stretch.
I never said that our PMs don't work in CAD, but no, we don't do a lot of it. The techs do 90% of the drawing - that's their job. Drawing all day would take PMs away from actual management - of staff, clients, schedules, contacts, etc. And yes, we still work up plans, sections, and elevations, specs, etc. But it's not limited to CAD. It's not a one-way street, either. We constantly question each other's work, and we learn from each other every day. It's not as if I can just hand a tech a napkin sketch and expect them to draw a full set of working plans. But honestly if I'm designing a 20 storey apartment building, I have to trust in their experience and knowledge - aka collaboration.
Look. I'm a newly licensed PM and I'm our office's building envelope specialist. I communicate what I want, through many types of instruction (including CAD) to my techs. They don't have to take stupid phone calls from contractors, they don't have to go to boring meetings or meet with the AHJ, their job is to draw, get their work checked by their PM, and revise as needed while providing suggestions for improvement and alternatives.
Our senior tech has been with us for 18 years. We treat employees very, very well. Everybody works to client-given deadlines, just like every other office. Nothing too unusual here. We all want more time to more fully develop every project. So I'm not sure how you get the idea that our PMs wouldn't have a handle on hours and schedules.
I made a decision a few years ago to focus on learning how to deliver good projects, instead of learning new software. My peers who focused on the software side got pigeon holed into specific tasks like rendering, which I wanted no part of, and I'm happy I did what I did. It works for some.
bowling_ball
Apr 29, 16 12:20 am
One more thing. Architects are terrible business people.
Why should a senior level person be expected to have their hands in every single task? Nobody in this industry gets into management without putting in their time in the trenches, and after a decade as a professional, hopefully you've climbed the ladder far enough that you've got other concerns and tasks - like keeping jobs on budget and schedule, and keeping everybody employed.
SneakyPete
Apr 29, 16 12:15 pm
Thank you for the elaboration, BB. I apologize for the disrespectful tone, I got fired up and projected my frustration with my current situation onto you.
"Architects are terrible business people."
Amen.
It sounds like you have a culture of respect and acknowledge the efforts of others, and that you don't believe that a tech is somehow less of a professional. Lack of respect, I am coming to believe, is one of the roots of my frustration, and has symptoms that cause me to rant like I did at you. When we treat everyone on the team with the proper respect, then the people who chose to be production, PM, design, what-have-you will all feel like equal, valid members of a team. This is what I think is important, but there are many divisions of labor that are possible.
bowling_ball
Apr 29, 16 2:59 pm
That's an excellent point and I'm glad I clarified. Office culture plays an important role. I've worked for self-described "tyrants" who deliver everything top-down, and needless to say it was extremely frustrating, not to mention inefficient. There's something to be said for having a strong voice and a strong leader at the helm of each office and project, but dictatorship for the sake of ego just crushes morale. There are limits to everything.
It's almost the weekend, SP, so I hope you get some rest. This job is like a roller coaster with an undetermined ending.
3tk
Apr 30, 16 2:31 pm
^word. Great team where everyone's engaged in getting things done right and thoroughly is an undervalued part of the profession. It's so much nicer when everyone chips in and helps cover for each other - too many dead weights and selfish chumps around.
I echo others sentiments: you should know what a software is meant to do and what their capabilities are. Early on it means mastering all the ins-and-outs of the software you use on a daily basis to be able to get tasks done efficiently while learning by understanding everything you're drawing. As you progress you'll be more concerned with how a building is constructed and functions while falling behind on the software side - it's not that senior design and management staff is software deficient, it's that their time and experience is often more useful elsewhere.
awaiting_deletion
Apr 30, 16 3:44 pm
roarks revenege define "design skills", I bet you can't and if you do it will be extremely subjective and only the talented will appear likely to succeed. as i noted, its talent, hencr learning to communicate talent is very important - Drafting.
AdrianFGA
May 2, 16 1:07 pm
"All that to say, learn the 3D stuff on your own time since it's easy"
Oh yes. Easy, if it's kept at the basic level of volumetric 3D modeling and renderings, perhaps.
If not, then, on complex or large projects at least, the design is optimized using a whole bunch of analyses, which are assesing things such as solar loading, wind loading, daylight/electric light, fire and smoke analysis; energy analysis which gives you information about the long-term effects of a particular design, like energy use, life cycle costs, break downs of consumption and loads, and so forth. Look up "Autodesk CFD" (cfd = computational fluid dynamics) which is one of the main simulation engines behind these analyses, and which can be linked to programs like Revit.
When you reach this level, the "designer vs drafter" dichotomy might be almost gone, because you have to be an architect or an engineer with a very solid and extensive background in these matters, and you would tend to personally use these tools, which are, essentially, 3D-based, and also a vital part of the design process.
I was employed in a 10-20 people firm for two years and decided to explore other options. in the firm, I supported our main designer with photoshop & drafting, project managers with CDs, and towards the end of my employment I worked as a job captain. But most of the project I worked on was ADA upgrades, renovations, and etc. There was a guy who came in as a junior designer like me, but he was only doing sketchup models and no CDs. I was pigeon-holed in CDs after he came in, and have barely any experience in 3d modeling.
Then I got a job offer at a reputable company. They have 10+ branches and in-house architect & engineers so I thought that it will be a change from my previous experience. However, I think the con of this company is that they work with prototypes and small retail such as Target, fast food chains, and etc. Seems like everything is in autocad and only one person works on 3d rendering and photoshop.
I wanted to be a "designer" but I feel like I am getting so much better in technical drawings and I don't know if this is good or bad. Most firms I have been interviewing with seem to draft everything in CAD still and only a few focus on 3d renderings (I wanted some experience in 3d because I believe I am average so I wanted to build up my skills). As an intern / junior designer, I don't know if this path is correct or if I should be seeking for change.
ANY advice will be appreciated. Thank you!
Sketchup and photoshop is damn easy and it's a job best kept for low-entry, low-pay employees. You'll advance much quicker if you concentrate your efforts of proper detailing and project management. I have people in my office who are licensed but only deal in sketchup... and that's where they will stay because they never made the effort to gain CA and CD experience when it was available.
All that to say, learn the 3D stuff on your own time since it's easy and take up as much CD & CA responsibilities as possible.
On the other hand, many firms "design" using sketchup and max, as if image-making was a replacement for considerate and extensive thought, research, and process. So in those firms you might feel more designer-y. Until, that is, you realize those firms also typically have a single person who designs top down.
If you are good in technical drawing, its much better to be architect. You have a skill that not so easy to gain.
I think it is good advice
a good drafter leads to a good designer.
design is easy (as far as skill goes). talent is not skill. you need good drawings to execute good design. the better you draft the better the execution of the design. some designers rely heavily on technical staff to produce and thats when the details for the design start to fall apart. some designers draft every last inch, thats when the details get designed and worked out.
Non Sequitur is right. Assuming your goal is Architect and not Computer Operator, you need CA and CD experience-as much as possible. Knowing every computer program is nice, but the job description of architect is knowing how to put a real life building together. Farting around with 3d is really not going to get you there.
Listen to Non Sequitur and geezertect.
Want to be an Architect?; Don't Learn Revit
And I will say it again. If you, as an architect in a firm that uses revit, do not learn revit, you are failing your firm. You have an obligation to understand the process, and that process includes revit. If you don't understand how a rainscreen works, you have no business using one on your "design" and making someone else figure it out. Same goes with revit. Nobody said you need to be a bim manager, but to refuse to learn it as some sort of manipulative power play?
Fuck that, and fuck anyone selfish enough to think it's a good idea.
^ Agree with sneakyPete, may as well not bother coming to work if you don't understand the process. Maybe tomorrow I'll stop understanding how to use AutoCAD.
^ I agree that a good working knowledge prevalent programs is important. But, it should not be in lieu of learning how buildings get built. The building comes first, not the computer.
Agree 100% with geezer.
Agree. Read the post and the comments and (despite the title) you'll see I say the same. Here's an excerpt from one of my comments (emphasis added just now):
"Learn CAD, or Rhino, or Sketchup, or 3DS Max, or Microstation, or even Revit ... yes, I said Revit (I've even said it before, way up there in the comments).
I don't think it really matters what you learn as long as you understand that the software is not going to make you an architect. You need to be proficient in whatever software your employer is going to require of you so go ahead and learn it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that if you attain some level of expertise or mastery in a particular program you have a golden ticket to the profession.
There are a lot of other things that make up this profession and you should become proficient in all of them. This includes cost estimating, scheduling, specifications, red lining drawings, building codes, contracts, agreements and other boring but extremely important documents. The sooner you start to show your boss how valuable you are in these other areas, the sooner you become a real asset to your firm and not just someone that knows Revit or AutoCAD really well."
I thought everybody has stepped up their Revit game for now (2016)?
Thank you everyone for all your advice!
At my office, the PMs aren't expected to know Revit, or barely CAD for that matter. That's what we have interns and techs for. The designers are tasked with communicating ideas and information to those drafting the project for CDs.
Design is not about the software any more than it's about the pencil sketch, sample board, or any other tool. Which is to say that all are components of a design, and necessary, but not ends unto themselves.
If software was the most important part, the best designers would be 20 year olds coming out of community college, and I'm fairly certain that's not the case.
NO IT IS NOT. You just dismissed the very essence of Architectural Education. Good Design at the Outset takes much much more time than ordinary / lazy design solutions. Ordinary Buildings are easy. No wonder Our Profession is barely regarded as necessary by the greater Public when its full of Architects who knock other Architects who might happen to be extra adept at front end design
Olaf Design Ninja_
(History|Contact)
Apr 25, 16 9:47 pm
design is easy (as far as skill goes).
"At my office, the PMs aren't expected to know Revit, or barely CAD for that matter. That's what we have interns and techs for. The designers are tasked with communicating ideas and information to those drafting the project for CDs."
Your office is either a special snowflake or full of miserable interns and techs. Probably the latter, but you wouldn't know if you are one of the designers or PMs. PMs are in charge of schedule and budget. If you don't have a clue as to how long it takes a tech or intern to do the work because you don't understand the tools they use, then you're not doing your job. If you think everything is fine, then either they are better at communication than you are and tell you honestly how long it will take, or they're hiding overtime in order to meet your uneducated expectations.
"The designers are tasked with communicating ideas and information to those drafting the project for CDs."
Yeah, fuck collaboration. Just communicate down the poop tube and hopefully the plebes will get the job done. After all, designers are too important to be burdened with such pedestrian issues as production and CDs.
This industry is a microcosm of what is wrong with the world. The fat cats at the top keep making bank while the rest of us make it work.
^No one in their right mind would work for a chicken shit firm like that.
Yet firms like that exist and are staffed.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. However, companies that do not value their employees are operating under a bad business model and will either fail or not achieve the success they could have.
I find that to be a bit of a Pollyanna point of view. We reward companies for bad behavior every day of the week, and Architecture isn't any different. Until we stop being apologists for the failings of our peers and superiors, things will not change.
I want to clarify a few things about what I said earlier, and the resulting comments. I will probably sound defensive in tone but I'm just trying to be clear and concise as I'm typing this on my phone.
We are a service firm of 20ish people, not a boutique design firm. While that can be frustrating at times, we are incredibly busy because "we get shit done" when other firms fail. We're under our fifth generation of ownership since inception in the1930s. For all of our faults (there are many), we're good at what we do, and we are national-level experts for one very specific type of health care design. But no, we are not snowflakes, not by any stretch.
I never said that our PMs don't work in CAD, but no, we don't do a lot of it. The techs do 90% of the drawing - that's their job. Drawing all day would take PMs away from actual management - of staff, clients, schedules, contacts, etc. And yes, we still work up plans, sections, and elevations, specs, etc. But it's not limited to CAD. It's not a one-way street, either. We constantly question each other's work, and we learn from each other every day. It's not as if I can just hand a tech a napkin sketch and expect them to draw a full set of working plans. But honestly if I'm designing a 20 storey apartment building, I have to trust in their experience and knowledge - aka collaboration.
Look. I'm a newly licensed PM and I'm our office's building envelope specialist. I communicate what I want, through many types of instruction (including CAD) to my techs. They don't have to take stupid phone calls from contractors, they don't have to go to boring meetings or meet with the AHJ, their job is to draw, get their work checked by their PM, and revise as needed while providing suggestions for improvement and alternatives.
Our senior tech has been with us for 18 years. We treat employees very, very well. Everybody works to client-given deadlines, just like every other office. Nothing too unusual here. We all want more time to more fully develop every project. So I'm not sure how you get the idea that our PMs wouldn't have a handle on hours and schedules.
I made a decision a few years ago to focus on learning how to deliver good projects, instead of learning new software. My peers who focused on the software side got pigeon holed into specific tasks like rendering, which I wanted no part of, and I'm happy I did what I did. It works for some.
One more thing. Architects are terrible business people.
Why should a senior level person be expected to have their hands in every single task? Nobody in this industry gets into management without putting in their time in the trenches, and after a decade as a professional, hopefully you've climbed the ladder far enough that you've got other concerns and tasks - like keeping jobs on budget and schedule, and keeping everybody employed.
Thank you for the elaboration, BB. I apologize for the disrespectful tone, I got fired up and projected my frustration with my current situation onto you.
"Architects are terrible business people."
Amen.
It sounds like you have a culture of respect and acknowledge the efforts of others, and that you don't believe that a tech is somehow less of a professional. Lack of respect, I am coming to believe, is one of the roots of my frustration, and has symptoms that cause me to rant like I did at you. When we treat everyone on the team with the proper respect, then the people who chose to be production, PM, design, what-have-you will all feel like equal, valid members of a team. This is what I think is important, but there are many divisions of labor that are possible.
That's an excellent point and I'm glad I clarified. Office culture plays an important role. I've worked for self-described "tyrants" who deliver everything top-down, and needless to say it was extremely frustrating, not to mention inefficient. There's something to be said for having a strong voice and a strong leader at the helm of each office and project, but dictatorship for the sake of ego just crushes morale. There are limits to everything.
It's almost the weekend, SP, so I hope you get some rest. This job is like a roller coaster with an undetermined ending.
^word. Great team where everyone's engaged in getting things done right and thoroughly is an undervalued part of the profession. It's so much nicer when everyone chips in and helps cover for each other - too many dead weights and selfish chumps around.
I echo others sentiments: you should know what a software is meant to do and what their capabilities are. Early on it means mastering all the ins-and-outs of the software you use on a daily basis to be able to get tasks done efficiently while learning by understanding everything you're drawing. As you progress you'll be more concerned with how a building is constructed and functions while falling behind on the software side - it's not that senior design and management staff is software deficient, it's that their time and experience is often more useful elsewhere.
roarks revenege define "design skills", I bet you can't and if you do it will be extremely subjective and only the talented will appear likely to succeed. as i noted, its talent, hencr learning to communicate talent is very important - Drafting.
"All that to say, learn the 3D stuff on your own time since it's easy"
Oh yes. Easy, if it's kept at the basic level of volumetric 3D modeling and renderings, perhaps.
If not, then, on complex or large projects at least, the design is optimized using a whole bunch of analyses, which are assesing things such as solar loading, wind loading, daylight/electric light, fire and smoke analysis; energy analysis which gives you information about the long-term effects of a particular design, like energy use, life cycle costs, break downs of consumption and loads, and so forth. Look up "Autodesk CFD" (cfd = computational fluid dynamics) which is one of the main simulation engines behind these analyses, and which can be linked to programs like Revit.
When you reach this level, the "designer vs drafter" dichotomy might be almost gone, because you have to be an architect or an engineer with a very solid and extensive background in these matters, and you would tend to personally use these tools, which are, essentially, 3D-based, and also a vital part of the design process.